• Home
• About GeneWatch
• GM Crops and Food
• GM animals
• New Genetic Engineering Techniques
• Human Genetics
• Laboratory and Industrial Use
• Research Agendas and Patenting
• Trade issues
• Biological Weapons
• Publications
• Press Releases

You are in Home Office DNA consultation → Press articles and external links

Press articles and external links

Recent Articles

• The Guardian: Police to continue to hold DNA of innocent people (11th November 2009)
  

• The Telegraph: DNA of protestors could be held for life (11th November 2009)
  

• The Times: Terror suspects excluded from plans to wipe DNA off national database (11th November 2009)
  

• in The Marper case
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: 1065th meeting, 15-16 September 2009
  

  Concludes that the Home Office proposal for the automatic destruction of DNA samples "appears to reflect the terms of the judgment", but that its proposals to retain DNA profiles after arrest do not conform to the requirement for proportionality or meet the requirements of the judgment with respect to children. The Committee also criticises the lack of an independent review of the justification of the retention of individuals' DNA profiles, and the poor quality of the scientific evidence provided by the Home Office.

• The Daily Mail: DNA of innocents will be kept on database for six years (29th October 2009)
  

• The Guardian: Home Office climbs down over keeping DNA records of innocent (19th October 2009)
  

• BBC Online: DNA storage proposal 'incomplete' (25th September 2009)
  

• Information Commissioner's Response to the Home Office Consultation
  

• Kingsley Napley LLP: Response to the Home Office Consultation
  

• Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Response to Home Office DNA consultation (2009)
  

• Committee on the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland): Submission to the Home Office DNA consultation (2009)
  

• Runnymede Trust: Response to the DNA consultation
  

• David Mery: Response to DNA consultation
  

• Foundation for Information Policy Research: Submission to the DNA consultation
  

• Daily Mail: 300 children a day added to DNA database (12th August 2009)
  

• Law Society response to the DNA consultation
  

• HGC response to DNA database consultation
  

• Liberty: submission to the DNA consultation
  

• The Observer: 'Racist bias' blamed for disparity in police DNA database (9th August 2009)
  

• The Guardian: Police told to ignore human rights ruling over database (7th August 2009)
  

• NSPCC response to DNA database consultation
  

• Police Foundation: Submission to the DNA consultation
  

• Children's Rights Alliance for England: Government plans for child DNA retention breach human rights, says youth justice committee
  

• The Telegraph: Equality watchdog warns DNA plans break law (7th August 2009)
  

• Equality and Human Rights Commission says Government DNA database proposals will still break law (7th August 2009)
  

• Equality and Human Rights Commission: legal advice (7th August 2009)
  

  Advice from Michael Beloff QC that the Home Office's proposals are likely to breach Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Black Mental Health UK: Response to DNA consultation (7th August 2009)
  6th August 2009

• 11 Million (UK Children's Commissioners): Response to DNA consultation
  

• Justice: Submission to the Home Office consultation
  

• The Guardian: DNA database plans based on 'flawed science' (20th July 2009)
  

• Bad Science: Is this a joke? (18th July 2009)
  

  Ben Goldacre concludes: "...if research of this callibre is what guides our policy on huge intrusions into the personal privacy of millions of innocent people, then they might as well be channeling spirits".

• New Law Journal: Keeping the DNA link (17th July 2009)
  

  Criminologists describe the Home Office's conclusions as "fallacious".

• in The Marper case
  New England Journal of Medicine: Protecting privacy and the public - limits on police use of bioidentifiers in Europe (9th July 2009)
  

  Regarding the Home Office's consultation proposals, George Annas concludes: "The proposal to destroy all DNA samples is stunning, goes well beyond the ruling, and is to be applauded. The 6- and 12-year retention times, on the other hand, seem excessive, and they may be reduced further depending on public reaction".

• Mr Justice Beatson: Forensic science and human rights: the challenges (16th June 2009)
  

  Mr Justice Beatson asks: "Will policy formed on the basis of this research lead to the confidence of the public in the policy choices made and thus in the National DNA Database which the government seeks? It is suggested that there is a risk that it will not unless the questions about the legitimate claims and boundaries of privacy and autonomy raised by the Strasbourg Court, but not dealt with in the Consultation Paper, are addressed".

• Straight statistics: The DNA database: innocent or guilty: what's the difference? (15th June 2009)
  

  Professor Sheila Bird describes the arguments used by the Home Office as "a travesty of both statistical science and logical thinking".

↑ Top